NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WHITTIER B. BUCHANAN, No. 20-16066
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05167-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GREGORY J. AHERN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Whittier B. Buchanan appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the First and
Fourteenth Amendments while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Gordon v. County of Orange, 888
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Buchanan’s
Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claims because Buchanan failed
to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant’s conduct in
the course of treating Buchanan was objectively unreasonable. See Gordon, 888
F.3d at 1124-25 (setting forth objective deliberate indifference standard for
Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical care claim brought by pretrial
detainee).
In his opening brief, Buchanan fails to address the grant of summary
judgment on his Fourteenth Amendment failure-to-protect and First Amendment
retaliation claims and has therefore waived his challenges to the district court’s
order regarding those claims. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d
925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually
argued in appellant’s opening brief.”); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th
Cir. 1999) (arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are deemed waived).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without
prejudice for improper joinder claims against nineteen defendants named in
Buchanan’s amended complaint because Buchanan failed to establish that these
claims arose out of the “same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2); see also Coughlin v. Rogers, 130 F.3d
2 20-16066
1348, 1351 (9th Cir. 1997) (standard of review).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-16066